Subject: [MEXT] MIP6 - DSMIP6 related to boot-nemo4manet

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:06:20 +0100

Hi,

I published an Autoconf solution, based on what we can do with existing
protocols as much as possible.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boot-autoconf-nemo4manet-00.txt
I used NEMO for dynamic tunneling between MANET Routers and Border Routers.
The MANET Routers act as Mobile Routers; the Border Routers act as Home
Agents. Nested NEMO is used for session continuity when handover occurs.

Issue related to MIP6:
I want Border Routers advertize not only that they provide access to
Internet, but optionally also the identity of the Service Provider. I used
draft-korhonen-mip6-service-04.txt as a guideline, signaling Service
Selection Identifiers.

Issues related to DSMIP6:
In want the NEMO tunnel to transport IPv4, utilize header compression and be
protected by IPsec.
Using DSMIP6 enables IPv4 and IPsec.
DSMIP6 Header Compression is proposed in
draft-haddad-mip6-tunneling-optimization-01.txt, but nothing more than
"TBD".
Building and maintaining security associations with guaranteed anonymity is
to be analyzed.

Issue related to MONAMI6:
I propose using concurrent MANET Router - Border Router tunnels for seamless
handover. Nothing special, except it is work in progress.

Comments (and help:-) on my draft is welcome.
I may post issues concerning DSMIP6, NEMO and MONAMI6 in Autoconf context.

Regards, Teco

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:27:16 +0100

> I used NEMO for dynamic tunneling between MANET Routers and Border Routers.

Teco, can one use NEMOv4 to do this dynamic tunneling between IPv4 MANET 
Routers and IPv4 Border Routers?  (NEMOv4 is an extension to Mobile IPv4 
to do Mobile Routers, it's in draft state in MIP4 WG - end of 
advertisement).

> Using DSMIP6 enables IPv4 and IPsec.

I think yes.

I think an alternative to this is considering NEMOv4 to transport IPv4 
and be protected by IPsec, with Header Compression too.

> draft-haddad-mip6-tunneling-optimization-01.txt, but nothing more than

I wouldn't call that _the_ "Header Compression", or I would make a 
distinction from ROHC "RObust Header Compression" so I can understand it 
better.

I think draft-haddad is a smart way to avoid tunnelling.

Alex

> I may post issues concerning DSMIP6, NEMO and MONAMI6 in Autoconf context.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________